Left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation; a systemic review and meta-analysis

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are an alternative therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation (OAC). However, there are limited data about the clinical outcomes of LAAC devices compared to medical treatment. Methods: A comprehensive research for studies comparing LAAC devices and OAC for patients with NVAF was performed from inception to January 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Five studies were eligible that included a total of 4778 patients with a median-weighted follow-up period was 2.6 years. Compared to OAC, the LAAC device arm was associated with a lower risk of the composite of stroke, systematic embolism, and cardiovascular death (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51–1.00; p = 0.05). LAAC device arm was also associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR of 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.77; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (OR of 0.57, 95% CI 0.46–0.70; p < 0.00001), hemorrhagic stroke (OR of 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.50; p = 0.0006), all major bleeding (OR of 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.88; p = 0.007) and non-procedural major bleeding (OR of 0.46, 95% CI 0.32–0.65; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in all stroke, ischemic stroke, and systematic embolization between the two groups. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed lower all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, non-procedural major bleeding and the composite of stroke, systematic embolism, and cardiovascular death in the LAAC device arm when compared to OAC. However, the risk of all stroke, ischemic stroke, and systematic embolism were similar between the two arms.